Leadership always contains far more down cycles than ups. Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Wilson, and both Roosevelts experienced setbacks that would have discouraged (the) less resilient.

Recently, there has been a profound change in how we think about corporate leadership. The 1990s was the era of celebrity leaders: we focused on Jack Welch, and not GE, on Bill Gates, and not Microsoft, on Steve Jobs, and not Apple, on Larry Ellison and not Oracle. But, on reflection, the records of most high-profile leaders have not withstood closer scrutiny. In almost all cases, it turns out that the success of organizations is due to the collective efforts of many, and not to the genius of a single, all-powerful individual at the top.

If America is to compete effectively in world markets, its corporate leaders must strategically position their companies in the right businesses, and then manage their workforces in the right ways. However, the nation has a shortage of business leaders who understand the importance of utilizing human capital to gain competitive advantage, let alone the know-how to do so. In the future, that shortcoming promises to be exacerbated because few business schools today teach aspiring executives how to create the kind of high-involvement organizations.

By all indications, American business leaders are more adept at creating business strategies than they are skilled at human capital management. American entrepreneurs are world-beaters when it comes to creating new businesses, and corporate managers are adept at using the latest marketing, financial, and technological practices.

The other players of job market are Global Competitors, the glamour corporations in high technology, telecom, entertainment, consumer products and pharmaceuticals who are the headline makers as they move jobs, services and production around the globe. They pay the highest salaries, but offer little in terms of job security, training, or careers.

Leadership always contains far more down cycles than ups. Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Wilson, and both Roosevelts experienced setbacks that would have discouraged (the) less resilient.

In the 80s, Ford's successful introduction of the Taurus was, in large part, due to productivity gains resulting from the setting aside of outmoded work rules. Yet, inexplicably, union leaders ignored such efforts to foster employee involvement, much as unions largely stayed on the sidelines with regard to the equally promising practices of employee stock ownership and gain-sharing.